FRAMING BREXIT:
A frame analysis of the EU’s press briefings and online media articles surrounding Brexit
Master’s Thesis Jenni Laitiainen
University of Jyväskylä
Department of Language and Communication Studies
English
October 2020
JYVÄSKYLÄNYLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta – Faculty
Humanistis-yhteiskuntatieteellinen tiedekunta
Laitos – Department
Kieli- ja viestintätieteiden laitos Tekijä – Author
Jenni Laitiainen Työn nimi – Title
Framing Brexit: A Frame Analysis of the EU’s Press Briefings and Online Articles Surrounding Brexit
Oppiaine – Subject Englanti
Työn laji – Level Pro Gradu -tutkielma Aika – Month and year
October 2020
Sivumäärä – Number of pages 84
Tiivistelmä – Abstract
Julkisten instituutioiden viestintää sekä erilaisia mediassa esiintyviä tekstejä on tutkittu useista näkökulmista niin kielitieteiden kuin esimerkiksi yhteiskuntatieteidenkin aloilla. Julkisille instituutioille onkin erityisen tärkeää, kuinka media uutisoi instituutioon liittyvistä aiheista ja tapahtumista.
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on verrata kehyksiä, joita esiintyy EU:n Brexit-aiheisissa tiedotteissa sekä Brexit-aiheisissa verkkouutisartikkeleissa. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on selvittää, millaisia kehyksiä tiedotteissa ja verkkoartikkeleissa esiintyy, ja millä keinoin tiedotteet ja artikkelit pyrkivät luomaan kehyksiä. Analyysi toteutetaan kehysanalyysin, diskurssianalyysin sekä
multimodaalisen diskurssianalyysin keinoin. Tutkimuksen aineistona on kuusi EU:n julkaisemaa tiedotetta, kolme verkkoartikkelia isobritannialaisista lähteistä, ja kolme verkkoartikkelia
yhdysvaltalaisista lähteistä.
Aineiston analyysi keskittyy kehyksiä kantavien semioottisten resurssien identifioimiseen. Näitä semioottisia resursseja ovat mm. sanavalinnat ja niiden konnotaatiot, sitaattivalinnat, otsikot ja väliotsikot, sekä kuvat ja muut visuaaliset tekijät. Analyysissäni kehyksiksi laskettiin sellaiset tapaukset, joissa samassa tiedotteessa tai verkkoartikkelissa esiintyi useampi kuin yksi tiettyyn kehykseen viittaava resurssi. Analyysissä yksittäiset esiintymät on eroteltu kehysten elementeiksi.
Tutkimuksessa selvisi, että mikäli EU:n tiedotteissa oli havaittavissa kehys tai kehyksiä, nämä kehykset toistuivat myös osassa verkkoartikkeleita. Lisäksi tutkimus osoitti, että konflikti- ja talouskehykset esiintyivät verkkoartikkeleissa tiedotteita useammin. Kehyksiä rakennettiin sekä tiedotteissa että verkkoartikkeleissa pääasiassa sanavalintojen ja sitaattivalintojen kautta, ja verkkoartikkelit käyttivät usein myös kuvia joko luomaan tai vahvistamaan kehyksiä.
Tutkimus lisää ymmärrystä paitsi kehyksistä ja niiden luomisesta, myös julkisten instituutioiden kuten EU:n suhteista mediaan ja mediassa esiintyviin teksteihin. Tutkimuksen havaintojen
vahvistamiseksi vaaditaan lisätutkimusta, ja laajempi aineisto voisi kasvattaa ymmärrystä myös siitä, mitkä kehykset ovat käytetyimpiä suuremmassa mittakaavassa.
Asiasanat – Keywords framing analysis, framing, discourse analysis Säilytyspaikka – Depository JYX
Muita tietoja – Additional information
Table of contents
1 Introduction……….…….……….…6
2 Theoretical framework………..……….………11
2.1. Framing……..……..………..…………....11
2.1.1 Framing and related fields….……....………..18
2.2 News discourse………....………..19
2.3 The EU and its communications ……….…….…...22
2.4 Brexit and the media………..24
2.5. Cognitive semantics and constructing meaning………26
3 The present study………...29
3.1 Data collection………...…..30
3.2 Methods..……..………...……….35
3.2.1 Framing analysis……….………..35
3.2.2 Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis………37
3.2.3 Multimodality and analysis of pictures………...………..39
3.2.4 Combining Framing Analysis and Discourse Analyses…...………… 41
4 Analysis………...42
4.1 January 2020………...…………....…..44
4.1.1 January press releases ……….……...…….………..…..44
4.1.2 January 29th online article (UK)………….……….48
4.1.3 January 31st online article (US)…………...………49
4.2 February 2020..………..………...51
4.2.1 February press releases………..………..52
4.2.2 February 3rd online article (US)……….………...54
4.2.3 February 12th online article (UK)……….56
4.3 March 2020………..………57
4.3.1 March press releases……….………...………58
4.3.2 March 19th online article (UK)…….………59
4.3.3 March 19th online article (US)……….………...………..61
4.4 Comparisons and quantitative analysis………62
5 Discussion……….……….…………66
5.1 Answering the research questions……….………….………66
5.2 Discussing the findings………..………67
5.3 Evaluation of the process and methods……..………73
6 Conclusions………..………75
Bibliography………...……….79
6 1 INTRODUCTION
The European Union is a political and economic union consisting of 27 member states. As such, it regularly makes policies, votes on legislation, and participates in different
international negotiations as a bloc. In addition, the EU also sends out regular communications about its activities and the decisions taken by its legislative and
administrative bodies. Much of this communication is done online though the European Union’s official website, where press briefings, newsletters, reports, and other materials are regularly published.
A recent issue that has been in the center of much attention during the last three years, not only within Europe, but also beyond its borders globally, is the British exit from the European Union, commonly known and referred to as Brexit. As a contentious and recent topic, it has been at the center of media attention, and also at the center of the communications of the European Union. It is for those reasons that this study will focus on analyzing the EU’s communications, in this case press briefings, and online articles on the topic of Brexit.
Additionally, given that it is an issue with potential implications beyond the United Kingdom and beyond Europe, the regional differences in online articles reporting on Brexit make for an interesting topic of study as well, one that will also be examined in this study as it relates to the differences in reporting between the United Kingdom and the United States.
This study, therefore, aims to analyze communications — specifically press briefings — made by the EU, and compare them to the news texts and stories published online on the same subject. These press briefings and online articles could be approached from a number of perspectives in the field of linguistics and indeed, this study will combine some of these perspectives and frameworks to provide a comprehensive and detailed analysis, and thus to provide valuable insights through its findings. Inevitably, the study is also multidisciplinary in nature, as it combines this linguistic analysis with the topic area of a political institution like the EU, which is inherently political and connected to fields such as political science.
However, more specifically, this study places the focus on framing, and thus intends to utilize theories and methods of framing analysis. This point of focus allows the study to explore how both the EU’s press briefings and the online articles frame the events and issues surrounding Brexit, and whether there are differences between the two. In addition to framing analysis,
7 the study will rely on methods of three connected fields: Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis, as well as Multimodal Discourse Analysis.
In addition to analyzing the kind of framing that is present in the press briefings and the online articles, the study will also examine how this framing is created in each case. For example, frames could be constructed through the quotes used in online articles or press briefings, or through semantic and meaning-making aspects like word choices or photo selection, among other factors. The aim is to analyze to which degree the framing presented by the EU’s press briefings is adopted by news organizations in their reporting, or if elements of the frames provided by the EU are at least present in the online articles. In addition, it is of great interest to the study whether the frames in each data set are constructed through similar means, or whether there are significant differences between how the media and the EU attempt to create frames.
Importantly, even though the data of the study is connected to the topic of Brexit, the focus of the study is not on the substance of Brexit itself, nor are its findings limited or applicable only to the topic of Brexit. Rather, the understanding of framing and the press briefings of an institution like the EU that is gained from this study is applicable to public institutions at a much more general level, regardless of topic or the field in which the institution operates.
Here, Brexit serves as a way for the study to gather comparable data on the same topic, and as a contentious and political topic, it also provides a recent and thus relevant set of data in which framing can be assumed to play at least some kind of role. In addition, the study will provide important information about the relationship between institutions such as the European Union and the media as it relates to the issue of framing, and this information can be applied to a variety of fields and be used as a basis for future research on similar topics, as more research on this topic is undoubtedly needed. The study, thus, will provide valuable insights that will have pragmatic value in institutions’ everyday communications.
This research is particularly important also because for any policy-making body or institution, public support and perception of policy is important. Therefore, the ability to effectively communicate policy priorities, decisions, or on issues in general, is vitally important to any such institution. It is equally important to note that the media undoubtedly plays an important role in this communication, as it relays information to the public. Therefore, understanding how this relaying of information happens, and how the institutions’ – in this case, the EU’s – communications are reported on by the media, is crucially important and relevant to the
8 public institution itself. This study is particularly interested in whether or not the frames that the EU constructs in its press briefings through word choices, contextual cues, photo
selection, or quotations, are adopted by the news media, and if so, to what degree. In addition, it is also relevant to ask whether different linguistic or structural choices made by institutions can have an effect on this, and if so, what those choices are. With such understanding, future decisions with regards to framing and communication can be informed by empirical evidence.
Research on this topic thus has implications not only for future research, but also directly for the European Union and other public institutions that engage in similar communications and share similar communicative goals and objectives.
As it relates to this topic area, much of the previous research focuses either on the strategies of institutional communication or the language used by media and how it influences
perceptions (De Vreese 2005). However, not much research seems to exist on institutions’
communications, or specifically press briefings, in comparison to media articles that report on them. Some empirical research has been conducted on the influence of framing choices on an audience’s opinions and perceptions. For instance, De Vreese and Boomgaarden (2003) have found that focusing on either the positive or negative aspects of an issue influences the perceptions that an audience forms about said issue. An empirical study conducted by De Vreese and Kandyla (2009) also found that framing something as either risk or opportunity had a similar effect.
While this study does not intend to study the audience perceptions created by certain frames, the focus is on the external communications of the EU, which are meant to be received by the public. To narrow the focus of the study, press briefings have been selected as representatives of these communications. However, it is also important to note that these press briefings represent only one part of what can be understood as the overall communications of the EU, which also include other external communication such as social media content, as well as internal communication within the institution itself.
Because the study focuses on framing, it is also important to understand what is meant by framing. The theoretical concept of framing has numerous definitions and is largely multidisciplinary in nature. These definitions will be introduced in more detail in the theoretical framework of the study. Broadly speaking, the concept of framing can be understood to refer to the notion that the way in which information is presented to an audience, i.e. framed, and the context in which it is placed, influences the way that it is
9 perceived by an audience (Scheufele and Iyengar 2016). Frames can be constructed through texts, which can include factors such as word choices, quotes, photo selection, among others.
These will also be thoroughly examined in Chapters 2 and 3. This study relies mainly on the definitions provided by Gitlin (1980) and Gamson and Modigliani (1989), which state that frames are persistent patterns used to organize discourse as well as packages of information that provide the audience with context. The study also draws on Scheufele and Iyengar’s (2016) concept of emphasis frames, which convey differing perspectives on the same issue or event.
As a concept, framing is thus broad enough to permit a holistic analysis of text and language as they relate to the society around them. This is beneficial for the purposes of this study because in the case of the communications of a public, policy-making institution such as the EU, a holistic understanding of societal and political aspects is also required. While the aim of the study is not to analyze audience reactions or responses to different frames, it does intend to gain insight into how frames are constructed in both the press briefings and the online articles.
The data analyzed in this study consists of press briefings published by the European Union between January and March 2020 and online articles published in the same timeframe. This timeframe represents the period of time before, during, and immediately following the finalization of the withdrawal agreement. A total of six press releases and six online articles were analyzed.
This study consists of the following chapters. A review of theoretical framework will be presented in Chapter 2. First, I will introduce and discuss the concept framing as well as its different definitions and applications, which forms the main framework of the analysis of the data. This section will also include discussion of the methodology of frame analysis, as well as a discussion of its potential weaknesses and the criticisms that some researchers have levied against it. Second, I will discuss news as a genre and the specific features of news discourse, and third, I will introduce the principles and publicly stated goals of the EU’s communications so as to place the data of the study in context and better understand it.
Finally, Chapter 2 will include discussion on the topic of Brexit, particularly how it was reported and discussed in the media, as well as a discussion of cognitive semantics as it relates to creating meaning. All of these are relevant to the study and crucial in understanding the topic at hand.
10 The data and methods of analysis used in the study, framing analysis, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and multimodal discourse analysis, will be explained in Chapter 3.
This section will also introduce the data and explain the selection process of the data, as well as introduce and discuss the research questions which the study aims to answer, as well as explain how and why these research questions were chosen. The analysis of the data in Chapter 4 will focus on examining the briefings published by the EU and comparing them to the online articles on the same topic. The aim is to understand to which degree the EU’s framing of issues and events, among other aspects, is replicated in the reporting in
independent media in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The analysis is mostly qualitative in nature, but I will also provide some quantitative analysis, focusing particularly on the frequency of specific frames in each of the text types.
Based on this analysis in Chapter 4, the findings of the study will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5, which will also provide answers to the research questions and critically examine the methodology of the study, as well as the challenges it presented. This critical assessment of the research methods and the study itself will help provide transparency and thus increase the objectivity of the study and the credibility of its findings. Finally, Chapter 6 will provide conclusions and implications for institutions, as well as implications and suggestions for future research in the field.
11 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter will introduce key theories and terminology relevant to this study, based upon previous research. This section combines literature from the fields that are relevant to the study and aims to also provide information on the topic-area that the study concerns. To this end, the discussion of the theoretical framework will progress through the larger theoretical concepts to topic-specific research.
First, I will discuss theories of news framing and framing analysis, as well as theories of how frames can be identified and thus analyzed. This discussion will also include an overview of how framing analysis is connected to the other methods used in this study: Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis. Second, I will review news discourse and news as a genre, including a definition of news and news discourse, as well as its characterizing features.
Third, I will briefly discuss the European Union’s communications, its goals, and theories of institutional communication. Fourth, in order to understand the topic of the texts that will be analyzed in this study, I will examine the issue of Brexit and the ways in which it has been discussed in the public domain. Finally, theories of cognitive semantics in relation to creating meaning will be discussed due to their relevance and interrelatedness to the concept of
framing.
2.1 Framing
The theoretical concept of framing has been defined in a variety of ways in literature studying media and communications. As a theoretical concept, it is closely linked with research in fields such as political communication, sociology, linguistics and journalism, and this can be considered one of its strengths: framing research combines elements of several different research areas (Matthes 2011). However, this also leads to the challenge of defining what exactly is meant by framing, or how exactly frames should be defined. Broadly speaking, it can be said that the central underlying idea behind framing research is that people’s
interpretations of information are dependent on how the information is framed, and in which context it is placed (Scheufele and Iyengar 2016).
12 More specifically, one of the earlier definitions of framing comes from Gitlin (1980: 7), whose definition refers to ‘frames’ as “persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse.” In addition to this, the present study will also follow the definition of Gamson and Modigliani, (1989: 143) who place the focus on meaning-making, and emphasize the role of frames as packages of interpretation that provide meaning to the issue at hand. They state that the frame is at the core of this package of interpretation and helps audiences make sense of events, as well as understand what an issue is about. In other words, frames in news help audiences understand what the issue that is being discussed is about, and what is important to know about it. According to Entman (1993), frames “define problems”, “diagnose causes”, “make moral judgements”, and “suggest remedies.”
A more recent definition by De Vreese (2005) defines and discusses framing as a “process”
undertaken by news organizations and outlets, and argues that rather than a static state, communication is a dynamic process that involves two different stages: first, frame-building (how frames emerge in communication), and second, frame-setting, which refers to the interaction that takes place between frames present in media and the predisposition that an audience has towards them. While this definition by De Vreese (2005) is useful in
understanding how frames are crafted, as well as their significance in the journalistic process, which is inevitably intertwined with the topic of this study, the definition itself places the focus more on the journalistic process than the concept of framing itself. As the aim of this study is to analyze frames rather than the journalistic processes behind them, this definition is less useful, though it is important to acknowledge as understanding framing as a concept also requires an understanding of how they are created.
As mentioned, this study will follow the definitions of Gitlin (1980) and Gamson and
Modigliani (1989: 143), which, despite their age, have been broadly utilized in frame analysis and which also provide a clear blueprint of what frames in fact are. As such, these two
definitions are also compatible and complement each other to provide a clear understanding of what frames are, what their purposes are, and how they can be constructed.
In addition to these two definitions that provide an understanding of what frames are, the study relies on a significant observation made by Scheufele and Iyengar (2016), which helps us understand what frames do. They emphasize a distinction between what they call emphasis frames and equivalence frames. From the perspective of equivalence frames, framing refers to
13 presenting the exact same information in differing ways. Emphasis framing, on the other hand, is described as a looser definition of framing, in which it is seen as conveying different perspectives on an event or an issue (Scheufele and Iyengar 2016). What this means is that from the perspective of equivalence framing, the message is informationally equivalent – or in other words, contains the exact same information – but is presented either through a loss- frame or a gain-frame. For example, to say “You are more likely to survive if you wear a seatbelt” represents the gain-frame, while to say “you are more likely to die if you do not wear a seatbelt” represents the loss-frame, while the information that is being conveyed is exactly the same (Ding and Pan 2016).
For the purposes of this study, however, the concept of emphasis framing is particularly useful, perhaps more so than equivalence framing. Entman and Rojecki (1993) define emphasis framing as focusing on certain aspects of a situation or issue and making those chosen aspects more prominent in communications to highlight a certain viewpoint, moral evaluation, or interpretation of an issue. The reason this is important from the point of view of the present study is because, as pointed out by Ding and Pan (2016), focusing on emphasis framing allows for a more generalizable analysis than focusing on characteristics that are very specific to a certain situation, such as the example about loss-frames and gain-frames in relation to seatbelts.
However, the focus on emphasis framing also has its critics. Scheufele and Iyengar (2016) voice concerns that the focus on emphasis framing has confused framing with other related terms and definitions, such as persuasion and agenda-setting, which are also largely studied in linguistics and communication studies. They are particularly concerned with frames being studied as persuasive effects among many other persuasive effects, thus blurring the distinction between the different terminology in the field. Importantly, they also note that while research of persuasion and agenda-setting is “schema-independent”, schemas are, however, culturally shared. In other words, whether or not a person understands a certain frame can depend on what culture said person is from or familiar with. In studying frames, then, one should be acutely aware of these culturally shared schemas and how they affect the creation of frames, as well as the reception by an audience.
Studying frames also has to include discussion of how frames are created. To this end, frame- building can be defined as the factors that influence the “structural qualities of news frames”
(Shoemaker and Reese 1996). These can be divided into factors that are internal to
14 journalism, and factors external to journalism. Frame-setting, on the other hand, refers to the way in which media frames interact with the prior knowledge and predispositions of their intended audience. In other words, frames can affect an audience’s perceptions based on the audience’s prior knowledge and positions on issues (De Vreese 2005).
In short, theories of framing are not so much concerned with the content of news, but rather, with the presentation of news, which can influence the way information is received and affects perceptions of its recipients. In the case of the European Union, for example, an increase in EU-wide spending on border security could be presented with frames such as military threat or European integrity and unity, both of which could be constructed through specific word choices, or decisions about who is quoted and who is not. It is likely that the choice of frame in such a situation could influence perceptions on the issue. Frames, then, form part of journalistic norms and the discourse of social movements and issues, and also take part in political discourse by engaging in political arguments. They provide the media, as well as institutions, with different ways of presenting and defining issues (De Vreese 2005).
While studying the effects of different frames on the public’s perception of different issues is beyond the scope of this study, previous research exists to suggest that there is indeed a link between these things. For instance, an empirical study by De Vreese and Kandyla (2009) surveyed 2,081 respondents and found that when EU foreign and security policy was
presented by “media and elites” with a frame of “opportunity”, it was far more likely to gain public support than if it was presented with a frame of “risk.”
In addition, De Vreese (2005) notes that previous research has also shown that the news frames of conflict and economic consequences in particular to have had an influence on an audience’s thoughts on a given political issue. In addition, in cases where news frames emphasize either the positive or the negative aspects of an issue, public support for policies can be affected (De Vreese and Boomgaarden 2003).
Based on such research, it could then reasonably be said that the way issues are framed and presented by media has a direct influence on the public’s perceptions of said issues, and perhaps even on the public’s policy preferences. Given that the European Union has law- making responsibilities through its Parliament, which is elected every five years, public perception of and opinions on policy are then of utmost importance to the EU’s work. By
15 extension, understanding the relationship between the EU and the media that frames its
policies is thus also vital to being able to achieve more effective communication.
A central question for the purpose of this study, then, is how these different frames can be recognized and identified in news texts. De Vreese (2005) states that there is in fact little consensus in the field on how and by which tools frames can be identified or classified. The two main approaches emerging from the previous research are the inductive approach and the deductive approach. In the inductive approach, content is analyzed without any set frames in mind prior to the analysis. In this approach, frames emerge from the content itself if they can be seen to be present. In the deductive approach, the opposite method is applied: frames are
“defined and operationalized prior to the analysis of the data” (De Vreese 2005).
The risk identified in the inductive approach is that it can be too broad in allowing for any feature of the material to be viewed or analyzed as a frame. Because of this, many researchers have argued in favor of the deductive approach. For identifying or categorizing frames, Cappella and Jamieson (1997: 47, 89) suggest four criteria that must be present for a feature of the material to be considered a frame. These criteria are:
1. A news frame must have certain “identifiable conceptual and linguistic characteristics.”
2. A news frame should be “commonly observed in journalistic practice.”
3. A news frame must be “distinguishable from potential other frames.”
4. A news frame must have “representational validity”, or in other words, it cannot be said to exist purely based on a researcher’s claim.
On a more practical and specific level, researchers have suggested a variety of ways for identifying news frames. These include analysis of the “absence or presence of keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, and sources of information” (Entman 1995: 52); “choices about language, quotations, and relevant information” (Shah et al. 2002: 367, as quoted by De Vreese, 2005); and “metaphors, exemplars, catch-phrases, depictions, and visual images as framing devices” (Gamson & Modigliani 1989).
16 Tankard (2001) also presents a comprehensive list of framing devices for identifying and analyzing frames. These devices, also referred to as mechanisms, include ‘headlines’,
‘subheads’, ‘photos’, ‘photo captions’, ‘leads’, ‘source selection’, ‘quotes selection’, ‘pull quotes’, ‘logos’, ‘statistics and charts’, and ‘concluding statements and paragraphs.’ It is therefore important to note that these framing devices include both textual features as well as visual features such as photos or charts. Analyzing frames, then, is inherently multimodal, to the extent that photos, illustrations, or charts are present.
In arguing in favor of the deductive approach to framing analysis, researchers have noted that it would be useful for future research to use a set of frames for different studies, instead of establishing new frames for each study. Neuman et al. (1992) have developed frames that apply to both audiences and media coverage of issues. The frames identified by their research are ‘economics’, ‘moral values’, ‘human impact’, ‘powerlessness’, and ‘conflict.’
The economics-frame was used to highlight “profit and loss”, or in other words, the economic impact of issues. The moral values-frame was used, in many cases indirectly, to make
implications or insinuations about morality of decisions or issues. The human impact-frame described the repercussions or effects of an issue on certain individuals or groups of people.
The powerlessness-frame described the dynamic between stronger forces and weaker individuals, often focusing on the dominance of the former over the latter, and the conflict frame referred to the practice in journalism to focus on opposing interpretations of or opinions on certain issues. Importantly, the conflict-frame, fits well with the occasional prevalence of strategic news, which in the case of politics, for instance, is often focused on themes of winning or losing. Also importantly, this research showed that these frames were found in relation to a number of different issues, suggesting that they could be more generally applicable than issue-specific frames (Neuman et al. 1992; De Vreese 2005).
In discussing framing, it has also been noted that the sources used in news have a substantial influence on the production of news, and different sources may also have a stake at
influencing the framing of issues or news stories. Gamson (1988) makes the argument that particularly sources from political, sociopolitical, or industrial organizations, often seek to influence the framing of news by appearing as experts or voices in news articles or
broadcasts. The choices that news organizations make about which sources to include, or to exclude, also strongly influences the final product. In the case of this study, the relevant
17 question then becomes to which extent news organizations rely on the EU’s communications as sources, and to which extent they quote and cite other, outside sources that might also be attempting to promote their own, separate interests.
Garragee and Roefs (2004) claim that the voices that are typically heard the most in these
“contests” to frame issues are those of “political elites”, such as politicians or interest groups representing certain political interests. However, as Crawley (2007) notes, it is also not uncommon for less dominant groups to participate in promoting certain aspects in framing issues. He cites as examples of this the women’s rights movement, or grassroots groups like environmental activists.
In analyzing news stories or communications by institutions, it is also important to acknowledge and understand that there is a distinction between the core facts of the issue (core elements) and the features of the story that participate in the framing (frame-carrying elements.) This distinction can be seen and is applied in most research on framing (De Vreese 2005). Frames can also be specific to a certain issue due to the fact that they are relevant only to a specific set of topics (issue-specific frames), or broader in how they can “transcend thematic limitations” (generic frames) (De Vreese 2005). Related to this is the concept of episodic framing, in which social issues are depicted in news as limited to specific events, as opposed to being placed in a larger context or interpretation (De Vreese 2005).
Frames can include, for example, framing issues through a lens of strategy (strategic news.) In cases like this, coverage can focus on themes of winning and losing, contain language relating to games or competition, performers, critics, and audiences, focus on style and perceptions, or give weight to things like polls (Jamieson 1992).
Importantly for the purpose of this study, the prevalence of strategic news can depend on the country and its media culture. For example, Cappella and Jamieson (1997) state that strategic news is more dominant in news coverage in the United States, especially in the case of elections (often referred to as “horse-race coverage”), but also in the case of policy issues.
As discussed earlier, while the focus on strategic news might be more prevalent in the United States, the way that issues are framed across the world can be very dependent on the national specificities of each country. Given that my study focuses on the news media in two different countries, this is an important aspect to analyze.
18
2.1.1 Framing and related fields
The analysis of frames and framing processes is closely related to Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis and thus also needs to be examined and understood alongside the two. For instance, Tannen (1993) notes that discourse analysis is often able to provide
valuable insight into the linguistic tools that are used to create frames in interaction. She also refers to frames as schemas, or “structures of expectation”, which are associated with how people act and expect others to act in interactive situations. While this theory discusses
framing more in the sense of person-to-person interaction, the framework is also useful for the purposes of this study: These structures of expectation can also be seen as existing in people’s minds when it comes to the media they consume. When reading an article in a newspaper or a press briefing from a public institution, one might have certain schema-specific expectations about what the text should and should not contain.
This can also be connected to Goffman’s (1981:67) concept of interactive frames, by which he means people’s interpretations of social situations. For example, in analyzing people’s interaction, an analysis of interactive frames would be interested in whether the participants think they are teasing or joking. In other words, how participants orient themselves
discursively influences the interaction itself, as well as the understanding of it. At least to some degree, this could be thought to be the case with the consumption of media texts or public communications as well.
In addition, Discourse Analysis overlaps with framing analysis and framing theory in that the latter often place a focus on meaning-making, a part of which is the construction of identities through discourse. Discourse Analysis has an interest in both of these phenomena as it analyzes and investigates communication in all its forms. In other words, it could be said that framing analysis and Discourse Analysis are inherently interconnected. Discourse analysts have used aspects of framing analysis in their research, and the concept of framing has also been extended by discourse analysts in such a way that has broadened the understanding of meaning-making as a whole.
Frame analysis, or framing analysis, can also be seen as a method within Discourse Analysis, as argued by Hope (2010), who states that the distinction between the two lies in the specific
19 interest that frame analysis has in how issues are defined and problematized, as well as the influence that this can have on the more general conversation around the issue.
As for Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), these connections to framing analysis are also present. As Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 258) state, discourse is “socially constitutive as well as socially shaped.” In other words, societies shape discourse, but discourse also has a significant role in shaping societies. In this sense, framing analysis can be thought to have many of the same elements: the cultural, political, and societal aspects surrounding, for example, newspaper texts, inevitably shape some of the framing of those texts. However, reversely, the framing used by newspaper texts also helps shape those cultural, political, and societal realities. In contrast, framing analysis at its core is more concerned with the linguistic and textual aspects of meaning-making, and its methods consist of detailed linguistic analyses (Hope 2010).
In discussing framing, it is also useful to mention another related concept: agenda-setting.
This refers to the idea that participants often compete to define which issues are most important and should therefore be brought to the forefront of public conversation and media attention. In media agenda setting theory, the way in which the press sets the agenda, or emphasizes one issue over another is of particular interest (Dearing and Roger 1996;
McCombs 2014).
2.2 News discourse
To analyze news discourse, we must first define the term news, which might not be as simple as it first appears. As Van Dijk (2008) states, the notion of news is quite ambivalent. In the English language, for example, news is often talked about with the term “news stories”, suggesting that there is some narrative aspect attached to news. In a more general sense, news can be taken to mean “new information.” The kind of news discussed in this study could be seen as a combination of these two: The focus is on news items or reports that provide new information about recent events, but in addition, an interest is placed on the frames used in news, which help to provide a narrative aspect.
20 The traditional structure of a news story or report consists of the following parts: the headline, the intro/lead, and the body or the lead development (Bednarek and Caple 2012: 96). This is the structure generally associated with what Bednarek and Caple (2012) define as a “hard news story”, which reports on new or recent events. It is typical of these news stories to answer the questions who, what, where, and when.
Van Dijk (2008) suggests considering news a “type of text or a discourse.” This framework is particularly useful for this study. In other words, one of the questions that has to be presented is what the structural specifics of news are, and in which ways they make news differ from other discourses. In analyzing news in the media, one must also consider the specific
parameters of mass media, and the way in which the medium of communication can affect the form and type of communication that is produced. In analyzing news discourse, then, aspects to be analyzed can include text linguistics, narrative analysis, stylistics, or rhetoric (Van Dijk 1988).
Analyzing news discourse through the lens of linguistics and semiotics, therefore, is useful for understanding the genre as a whole, as well as its conventions. As Bednarek and Caple (2012:
6) argue, the relationships between producers of news media, the institutions or figures that they scrutinize, and the audiences that consume news, are constructed largely through
semiotic and linguistic resources. Meanings are created through the use of words, images, and the layout and organization of words and images, among other factors. News discourse can also be studied with a variety of approaches in linguistics. Bednarek and Caple (2012) name a number of these approaches, and the three most relevant to this study will be discussed here:
The sociolinguistic approach, the systemic functional linguistic approach, and the critical approach.
In the sociolinguistic approach, the focus can be on the features of news in comparison to their intended audience: the language that newspapers use can vary depending on the targeted audience. In the systemic functional linguistic approach, news discourse is approached from the perspective of genre and register. In addition to an analysis of linguistic features, this approach also includes discussion of an “authorial voice” and expressions of subjectivity in news discourse (Bednarek and Caple 2012: 8). For example, as Martin and White (2005) note, expressions of subjectivity can be analyzed by distinguishing the different voices present in a news story. They categorize these voices as “a reporter voice, a correspondent voice, and a
21 commentator voice.” Finally, the critical approach is closely related to the concept of Critical Discourse Analysis and is concerned with, for example, power relations and ideologies that underlie news discourse. (Bednarek and Caple 2012).
However, it should also be noted that some researchers argue for a distinction between news discourse and news as a genre. For instance, Pynnönen (2013: 16-17) states that the genre of a text, such as news, has characteristics that are a lot more fixed, whereas news discourse is more dependent on the specific topic of a given article. The distinction between text and discourse is also highlighted by Wodak (2001: 66), who describes discourses as linguistic acts that focus on different topics at the macro-level.
In terms of the language of news, Bednarek and Caple (2012: 85-92) list some typical
linguistic features that traditionally appear in newspaper articles. These features include noun phrases, verbs in the present tense, few modal verbs (may, can, should, etc.), frequent use of verbs in the passive, place adverbials and adverbials used to specify time, figures and numbers, and intertextuality. In reporting on quotes from various sources, Bednarek and Caple (2012: 93-94) note that the use of reporting expressions can influence the perceived reliability of the information. For example, the word ‘claim’ carries less reliability than the word ‘reveal.’ Most of these reporting expressions in news have been shown to be neutral, which is linked to the goal of objectivity in news reporting. However, an analysis of these reporting expressions can reveal expressions of subjectivity in news reports that are presented as objective.
In analyzing news discourse, it is also important to understand how news work is constructed.
In talking about journalism, Hamelink (2015) notes that there is enormous pressure for journalists to provide news stories that are both simple and complete. The requirement of a complete story, or the requirement of certainty, however, can be difficult to meet, because there are often aspects that cannot be known at the time of reporting. According to Hamelink, these blanks are often filled with what he calls “spin doctors” or “perception managers”, who provide answers to the unknowns. As it relates to this study, it is, then, relevant to ask which voices are present in news stories, what interests those voices represent, and how they participate in creating the frames that are present in news.
22 2.3 The EU and its communications
According to Valentini and Nesti (2010), in 2005, the EU made an institutional priority of its communication as it launched a communication plan, the goal of which was to “improve the public understanding of EU and its activities and to strengthen common sense of belonging between citizens.” The measures outlined in this plan included the publication of
programmatic documents, improvement of existing services, and increasing adoption of new online tools.
However, one of the persisting challenges EU-wide communications is that issues are often discussed very differently and through a different lens in the national media of different countries. As Koopmans and Erbe (2003) note, the absence of a European-wide direct communicative links, the issues relating to the EU rely heavily on the mass media to gain attention or legitimacy.
This, in part, has raised questions about the potential emergence of a European public sphere, or an “Europeanized” public sphere. The term “public sphere” usually refers to the place
“where the public opinion takes form through the discussion of problems, political issues and decisions and where the political power is placed under scrutiny” (Fossum and Schlesinger 2007, as quoted by Valentini and Nesti 2010).
Whether or not a common, European public sphere exists is a question that has been discussed among scholars. It can be argued that such ideal European public sphere would “emerge if and when the same (European) themes are discussed at the same time with the same criteria of relevance” in different countries (Risse and Van de Steeg 2007: 5). However, there are
barriers, such as the different languages spoken within Europe, that make this ideal scenario difficult to accomplish, despite the fact that English as a lingua franca within Europe has gained at least some prominence in the last decades. Some argue that a Europeanized public sphere is emerging, while other researchers say that such process has not yet occurred as the debate about the EU in media is still strongly nationally oriented. Finally, the more skeptical research argues that evidence for this kind of Europeanization does not exist at all, because the presence of evidence depends on which topic is chosen for analysis (Valentini and Nesti 2010). Whatever the case may be, it seems clear that any public sphere that exists within Europe is at least very fragmented and at least to some degree, dependent on national
23 perspectives. This, as discussed before, creates a challenge for the EU in terms of its
communications.
The goals of public communication of institutions can be to provide information, raise awareness of certain issues, or to influence attitudes or behavior towards issues or policies.
(Mancini 2002). On its website (November 2019), the European Union outlines three main objectives of its communications. The objectives include listening to the public and taking their views and concerns into account; explaining how European Union policies affect citizens’ everyday lives; and connecting with people locally by addressing them in their national or local settings, through their favorite media.
However, the communications analyzed in this study – press briefings – are not necessarily intended to be received only by citizens. Rather, the objective of such communications can often be to inform the media, which then, in turn, reports on these briefings and relays the information to the public. It is important, therefore, to note, that there are significant
differences in how media systems operate in different countries within the EU: for example, there can be variations in how they are funded or structured, or how politically independent they are (Humphreys 1996). There is no EU-wide media, and as a result, national media tends to view EU policy, and therefore report on it, through a localized lens.
The EU also consistently conducts polls on public opinion and perceptions of certain issues, or themes, in a poll named the “Eurobarometer.” Therefore, based on its own activities, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that communicating in a way that enhances public support of its policies is important to the EU, as it would be for any political body or institution.
The challenges of this, however, have been noted by officials within the EU as well. The former Vice-President of the European Parliament, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, has stated that EU institutions suffer from a “serious and endless communication problem. Europe, as a
communication issue, is not very exciting. How can we make Europe exciting?” In 2006, Member of Parliament Graham Watson said: “[The EU] has failed to communicate
enthusiasm and optimism to those who hold its future in their hands.” Clearly, communicating the decisions and actions taken by the EU to the public in a way that is exciting, or using language that can be understood and embraced by the public, or national media institutions, has been an enormous challenge.
In analyzing the communications of the EU, then, it is useful to keep in mind this challenge and the aims of EU’s communication. From the point of view of this study, it is, then,
24 important to keep in mind the following: how the EU’s communications goals are met in their official publications, and what steps are taken by the EU to combat these challenges. While this study will not focus on the audience reaction or response to a publication made by the EU, nor will it examine the publication process of the EU as an institution, it will critically examine the linguistic and other frame-carrying features in these publications to gain an understanding of how the EU attempts to respond to the challenges outlined in this chapter.
The success or failure of these attempts will not be judged based on polls on public opinion or as mentioned before, audience reaction. Rather, it will be judged based on the degree to which these linguistic and frame-carrying features are replicated (or not) in the online articles on the same topics. This is important because in lieu of European-wide news organizations, citizens often get their news from their local news outlets. It is then reasonable to assume that how these outlets represent events and issues is therefore of utmost importance and interest to the EU as an institution.
2.4 Brexit and the media
The British referendum to exit from the European Union took place in June 2016 and is commonly known and referred to as “Brexit.” Since then, negotiations have been underway between the United Kingdom and the European Union to determine how and on what terms such exit will take place. As of this study, the exit has not yet occurred and negotiations are still ongoing.
Unsurprisingly, given the historic nature and the vastness of its consequences, the topic of Brexit itself has been studied quite widely, including the shifts and changes in public opinion leading up to and following the referendum. It has also been shown that the British media’s coverage and framing of issues played a role in shaping public opinion and shaping the conversations that were had in the country at the time of the vote.
Even though the circulation of British newspapers has dropped since the early 1990’s, the press still has significant power to sway elections and public opinion, according to Hinde (2017). He argues that the British press is not only heavily involved in politics, but also somewhat biased. He claims that this bias is not limited to the opinion pages of newspapers, but rather, permeates the reporting as well, hindering the media’s ability to present things objectively, also perhaps due to a lack of willingness to do so.
25 While he acknowledges that it is impossible to calculate the exact impact of the press on the ultimate results of the referendum, he also notes that the coverage of the referendum, and the framing of it by the British press, often made no effort to strive for “balance and accuracy”, which is often expected of newspapers and journalists. He cites headlines in British
newspapers that, for example, likened “opponents of the EU to British politicians of the 1930’s who spoke out against Hitler and the Nazis”, or framed the European Union as
“greedy elites.”
Importantly, the coverage of Brexit and the way that it was framed in many British
newspapers also focused on a number of different issues. “In newspapers like The Sun, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, reporting of Europe has focused on cost, waste, bureaucracy, interference in domestic sovereignty and, particularly in the last ten years, on immigration”, Hinde (2017) states.
In the summer of 2016, before the vote, there was a particular uptick in pro-Brexit stories in these newspapers, which, in many cases, had a heavy focus on the topic of migration.
According to Hinde (2017), headlines in newspapers at this time included terminology and phrases such as “invade”, “sneak into”, “migrant crisis”, “open borders”, and “EU killers and rapists” when referring to migrants or the issue of migration in general.
Khabaz (2018) also notes that national newspapers in Britain had an influence on the result of the referendum and claims that the influence can be seen particularly in the repetitive use of certain frames, such as “taking control”, “sovereignty”, and “democracy”, which were not specific to Brexit, but rather, highlighted or brought attention to issues and concerns that had been present long before the referendum itself. Several scholars have also made similar claims by stating that public opinion on the referendum was shaped in large part by national
newspapers in the UK, which also participated in distorting the truth on some occasions.
Given all this, it is perhaps not a coincidence that according to a poll of over 12,000 respondents, voting to leave offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders ranked as the second most important reason for voting to
“Leave” the EU and was favored by a third of “Leave” -voters (Lord Ashcroft Polls 2016).
One can reasonably draw the conclusion that the media has at least some power to influence the public’s opinions, priorities, and perceptions of issues. Therefore, the media’s framing and coverage of issues in comparison to the information provided by institutions such as the EU becomes increasingly important to study and understand, although it is also important to state
26 that the EU, as noted before, also has its own agenda in trying to communicate about its actions and decisions in a way that enhances public support.
2.5 Cognitive semantics and constructing meaning
On the issue of the language used by the EU in its publications, the question of word choice is particularly important, as it may influence the audience’s perceptions. However, it is also important to note that the way word choice may influence attitudes or opinions is also
dependent upon the recipient’s prior political views. For example, in the American two-party system, studies have found that Republicans generally have a more adverse reaction or representation of taxes than members of the Democratic party (American National Election Studies 2004).
In understanding and analyzing language choices, particularly word choice, it is also important to understand the connotations that words have. According to Allan (2007), the connotations of words are “pragmatic effects that arise from encyclopaedic knowledge about its denotation (or reference)”, as well as an audience’s “experiences, beliefs, and prejudices about the contexts in which the expression is typically used.” In choosing one’s words or expressions, then, one must understand the attitudes that a community has towards them.
The study of connotations is inevitably intertwined with the study of meaning on a larger scale as well. This includes questions about what meaning really is, how it is constructed, and what kinds of meanings can be described, and how. Even statements that may seem objective on their surface can in fact be opinion-laden and imply sentiments of the writer, or even to produce certain emotions or responses in a reader’s mind (Greene and Resnik 2009;
Mohammad and Turney 2010, as quoted by Cruse 2000). The analysis of connotations and word choice, then, has to be expanded into, or be done with an understanding of meaning- making, semantics, and cognitive semantics.
As noted by Cruse (2000), a word on its own does not actually say anything or express a full thought. In order to express whole thoughts, more complex structures, or semantic entities are necessary. Cruse also notes that the context in which a linguistic expression occurs influences its meaning. This variation can be great in scale (Cruse 2000: 96).
27 To account for such variation of meaning depending on the context, Cruse (2000: 105)
suggests questions that must be asked during analysis. These questions include taking into account, for example, whether words typically have multiple meanings, and how it should be decided what constitutes a meaning. It is also relevant to ask if the number of such meanings is finite, and how they might be related to each other. In the analysis of word meaning, it is also important to acknowledge the principle of “identity constraints.” This means that once one has decided upon an interpretation of the meaning of a word, one must “stick with it.”
This constraint applies both to the writer and the reader of a text (Cruse 2000: 106). In analyzing the meaning of words in different contexts, therefore, it is important to understand the contexts in which a particular word or expression has been used before.
Related to this idea, another important perspective is offered by Allwood (1999), who talks about the concept of meaning potential. This refers to how a person remembers the previous use of a certain expression, and what information the person thus associates with that expression as a result. In other words, if a person has heard a certain expression used in a certain way or a certain context, he or she is likely to associate similar meanings to that expression upon hearing it again, even in a different context. From the point of view of institutional communication, this highlights the importance of understanding one’s audience and the meaning potentials of specific words or expressions that said audience can have.
What actually determines the meaning of an expression is a cognitive operation. According to Allwood (1999), the function of these cognitive operations is to “achieve compatibility between the meaning potential of a particular expression, the meaning potential of other expressions, and the extralinguistic context.”
In analyzing meaning, it is also important to take into account what Cruse (2000) refers to as perspectives. Essentially, this term in the context of meaning-making means that the
perspective from which something is observed influences the way that it is seen and
interpreted. Naturally, the perspective which is adopted in each case depends heavily on the observer. For example, an economist studying the world economy might have a different point of view on the topic of Brexit than a historian. Therefore, in studying meaning and how it is both constructed and interpreted, it is important to take into account each party’s
particular motivations and how they might influence the perspective that is chosen. This is especially true of the online articles analyzed in this study, which originate from different
28 news organizations that might all have their unique perspectives, including political
persuasions.
29 3 THE PRESENT STUDY
In this chapter, I will introduce the data used in the study. In addition, this section will explain the methods for both collecting the data and analyzing it, as well as introduce the aims of the study and the research questions.
The study has two main aims. First, the study intends to examine the kind of framing that is used by the EU in its press briefings, and to explore whether this framing is replicated in the online articles or not. Second, the study aims to gain insight into how frames are created through the use of framing devices, and whether certain frames or framing devices are more prevalent in one of the data sets, the press briefings or the online articles. Framing devices, as discussed in Chapter 2.1.1. and as described by Tankard (2001) are the different tools that are used to construct frames. These can include, for example, word choices and the connotations of these words, quote selection, or photo selection.
The research questions the study aims to answer are the following:
1. What frames are used in official press briefings by the EU, and to which degree, if any, are these frames replicated in online articles on the same topic in media?
2. What kinds of framing devices are used, or how are frames created, in the press releases and the online articles?
The research questions have been selected so as to set the focus of the study on the framing devices used in the various texts analyzed. The first research question brings the focus of the study on the comparison between the EU’s press briefings and the online articles on the same topics. This focus is important because as discussed in the previous chapters, empirical research on this topic is relatively scarce. In addition, this focus is used to provide valuable information about the interactive relationship between public institutions and the media, which can help institutions plan and execute their communications more efficiently.
The second research question has been chosen to place the focus on the framing devices themselves. From the point of view of the present study, it is vital to understand how frames are created, and whether or not there are differences in how the EU creates frames and how the media creates frames. In addition, identifying and analyzing these framing devices can
30 help audiences recognize them in the media texts they consume, and thus be more informed as consumers of media.
The study also analyzes data, in this case, online articles, from publications from two different countries: the United States and the United Kingdom. While the comparison of the articles from these countries is not the main aim of the study, articles from both countries have been chosen for two main reasons. First, the selection of articles from two different countries attempts to account for the potential biases that might occur in a certain geographic location.
Analyzing data from two different countries means that while this localized bias still exists, the same biases are not present in all the data. Second, selecting data from two countries provides two different perspectives and therefore produces insight into whether framing devices and choices are similar across geographic borders.
3.1 Data collection
The data used in this study is divided into two categories, each of which will be introduced individually. The first set of data consists of press briefings from the official websites of the European Parliament (www.europarl.europa.eu) and the European Commission
(www.ec.europa.eu), which were published between the months of January and March in the year of 2020. This timeframe has been chosen because it represents the period of time right before, during, and right after the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union, which became official on January 31st, 2020. From each of the three months, two press briefings have been selected. The reason for this is to make sure that the same number of press releases and online articles are analyzed. Below is a table of all the press briefings analyzed in this study.
Table 1. Press briefings analyzed in the study.
Date of press briefing
Title of press briefing Word count of press briefing (excluding headline and lead)
Number of photos in the press briefing
31 January 29,
2020
Brexit deal approved by the European Parliament
692 words One photo
January 31, 2020
EU Presidents lay out priorities for future of Europe
246 words One photo
February 3, 2020
Future UK-EU Partnership:
European Commission takes first step to launch negotiations with the United Kingdom
578 words No photos
February 12, 2020
EU-UK future relations: “level playing field” crucial to ensure fair competition
481 words One photo
March 2, 2020
EU-UK future relations: crucial to ensure EU leverage and unity
315 words No photos
March 18, 2020
Future EU-UK Partnership:
European Commission publishes draft legal text
308 words No photos
The two press briefings form January 2020 are both from the European Parliament and focus on two main things: First, the vote taken by the Parliament to approve the terms of a Brexit deal, and second, the finalization of the British exit from the European Union and discussion of it from the point of view of the EU’s priorities for the future. These two briefings were selected from January 2020 for two main reasons. First, because the vote by the European Parliament, as well as its aftermath, was perhaps one of the most high-profile topics of the month surrounding the EU, and second, because despite their chronological proximity, they were quite different in style: one of them was more focused on a specific event, while the other focused on highlighting the EU’s common voice and relied heavily on the use of quotes.
The press briefings from February 2020 are from February 3rd and February 12th, published by the European Commission and the European Parliament respectively. The focus of these press briefings is on the negotiations with the United Kingdom. Finally, the press briefings from March 2020 are from the European Parliament and the European Commission,
32 published on the 2nd and the 18th of the month. Both of these briefings discuss the future relationship between the two parties and also attempt to highlight the EU’s priorities in defining this relationship.
Because of the timeframe, these press briefings show not only the chronology of the
negotiations and the process of Brexit, but they also show the EU’s somewhat shifting focus from describing the process to laying out its own priorities.
The second data set consists of online articles from publications in two countries: The United Kingdom, because of its relevance to the topic of Brexit; and the United States, because it provides a perspective outside of Europe. Below is a table of all the online articles analyzed in the present study.
Table 2. The online articles analyzed in the study.
Publishing date of the online article
Publishing media organization
Title of the online article
Word count (excluding headline and lead)
Number of photos/videos in the online article January 29,
2020
BBC (UK) Brexit: European Parliament overwhelmingly backs terms of UK's exit.
882 words Two photos, three videos
January 31, 2020
The New York Times (US)
U.K. Leaves E.U., Embarking On an Uncertain Future
2905 words 12 photos
February 3, 2020
NBC News (US)
E.U. and U.K. set out conflicting red lines for post-Brexit deal
692 words One photo, one video
February 12, 2020
The Guardian (UK)
UK alignment on EU standards price to pay
505 words One photo
